That signal has proven effective for pedestrian safety while not causing any impact of statistical significance (DDOTs words) on the arterial route or the side streets in the area.

The recent announcement by DDOT is simply baffling to pedestrian safety advocates.

While on the one hand, the city espouses a more pedestrian-friendly environment. The recent release of the Master Pedestrian Plan demonstrates a commitment to a more progressive transportation policy.

On the other, DDOT recently announced the conversion of a 100% effective pedestrian signal to a traditional signal. This decision appears to have been made in response to drivers who found the signal "confusing". Perhaps a better course of action from DDOT would be to discern the confusing aspects of the signal and implement better practices than to simply abandon the program all together?

Every time a pedestrian is injured or killed on District streets, the
public demands action, from police, from the city and ultimately from
drivers. Tragically 2007 suffered a record year for such injuries and
fatalities.

What I find puzzling is that despite a 100% unblemished record of
both pedestrian and vehicular safety, the agency has chosen to
abandon the signal in favor of a car-centric solution without any engineering, safety or scientific data to back the change.

We expect more from the experts, and further expect that decisions like this are made in conjunction with broader societal movements and with data to back the decision, not to cater to the mirco-political whims or the traditional car-centric metrics.

That said, Eric Weiss was very careful to refer to "some suburban commuters." Also, the article quotes 5 people in favor of DC's initiatives, and only 2 people against. In fact, it seemed to lay out both sides very well.

It also makes perfect sense that suburban MD and NoVa drivers (rightly or wrongly) would be angry with DC's attempts to move them out of their cars and towards mass transit.

Thus, while lacking in evidence and methodological rigor, the Post's article still doesn't qualify as an op-ed or even as a biased piece of journalism.

I think the topic of suburban commuter anger over urban policy planning that directly affects their wallets is an important one and worthy of attention in the press.

It would be more accurate to say that the Post was summarizing "some of" the residents. In particular, ones who have already chosen to drive into the city. What makes the article an editorial (even if not listed as one) is the choice of whose opinions to summarize. People who live in DC and benefit from pedestrian and air quality improvements, and those who take public transit and stand to benefit from service improvements do not have a voice in the article. Their opinions are not summarized, they are omitted.

Cheers,

--Ian

I'm sure some commuters from the 'burbs feel that way. But how many of them are there?

Basically, the whole article came off as an attempt to make controversy where there isn't any. You can "some" people to say anything. I don't think the numbers of "some [angry] suburban commuters" was worthy of the play it got in the Post. Sure, they're summarizing the view of some residents they talked to. But why are those residents representative of the rest?

"The District is escalating what some suburban commuters are calling its war against workers who drive into the city."

The article wasn't an op-ed. GreaterGreaterWashington's evidence-free analysis notwithstanding, the WashPost was simply summarizing the view of a number of NoVa residents.

Whether or not these NoVa residents are correct in their views, these are still their views.

Were it not for the stadiums and the possiblity that a few people might go out to eat before the games, I'd say zero.

It's all supported by residents, people who work there, and tourists, and most of them do not arrive by motor vehicle. And there isn't a lot of it -- most of the retail is out in the 'burbs, and that's where most of the people from the 'burbs go.